We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money....

[I]t’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy. It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them. It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools. It’s rigged against you, the American people....

If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C. The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests. Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft. She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash. Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public. Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001. They totally own her, and that will never change.

The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control. Those are the stakes.

He may be right about Hillary, but her disqualification for the presidency was already known to most of us. The question for Trump is whether he is acceptable. This is a lot like a cat trying to tell you that it should be allowed to drive the car because the dog certainly can't do it.

Maybe the car is going into the ditch either way, but we don't have to pretend this was a good idea.

Chris,Trump is as qualified to be president as the trash that is present there now. In fact, he is super qualified. I have never seen a candidate more qualified for the position than Trump, certainly not any Clinton or Bush and Obama is only qualified for janitor. As to Hillary, why isn't she in jail?? If any one else was in her shoes, they would be wearing orange by now.

Brando, we are "thrown." We can't change that we are unsafely flying through the air, but a vote for Trump is the best way to poke the people who did it to us in the eye. We know that they are all fine with Hillary.

[I]t’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy. It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them. It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools. It’s rigged against you, the American people....

I think that clearly Trump is condemning "big donors" to both political parties, and perhaps political donors outside of the parties themselves.

That part doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am cataloguing all of Trump's condemnations of the GOP establishment, of GOP donors, and his comments on campaign finance reform (which sets up a pretty clear distinction between free speech advocates who like the Citizens United decision, and leftists who abhor Citizens United).

Because I expect (no predictions) that Trump will lose in November, and afterward, as Trump always does, he will blame somebody other than himself. He'll blame Republican mainstreamers, and "the establishment," and donors who didn't turn out for him like they did for other Republican candidates.

And at that point, all of Trump's disowning of "the GOP establishment" will be particularly useful. Trump never wanted any "establishment'" support. I hope he doesn't get any. For everyone's benefit.

Trump bashed the "big donors" during the primaries and continues to bash them in the presidential campaign.

Trump says he is worth $10 billion dollars. So, why doesn't Trump go down the escalator at Trump Tower and into a bank to cash a check for a $1 billion dollars for his campaign? Because, Trump knows he'll lose his money.

Otherwise:The reason to devolve power to the states in a federal system is so federal elections have less influence in our lives. This would make a presidential election much less important. Any system that consolidates power will necessarily diminish freedom.

"Americans deserve better, beginning with restoration of The Constitution to secure the Blessings of Liberty [and Life] to ourselves and our Posterity."

The two most popular things the government does are Social Security and Medicare. How do you square that goal with a large majority of the public favoring a forced pension savings scheme and a single-payer healthcare system for the elderly?

Otherwise:The reason to devolve power to the states in a federal system is so federal elections have less influence in our lives. This would make a presidential election much less important. Any system that consolidates power will necessarily diminish freedom.

Leviathan must be killed."

First, so long has there's been civilization, there's been a "system," so I'm not sure when you're talking about.

Second, most of the ways the government interferes in people's life is at the local and state level. Except for paying federal income taxes, which nearly half the population doesn't pay, the average American has very little interaction with the federal government.

The best line of the speech that would be repeated endlessly on the front page headlines if he were a Democrat running against a Republican, Hillary's line is, I'm with her. But I say, I'm with you. Not an exact quote.

Why would Gergen find that calling Hillary a crook or corrupt was somehow beyond the pale, but saying that Trump was a con man and engaged in a fraud totally ok? I mean, I already have an answer (because Gergen is in the tank for Hillary) so its more of a rhetorical question. But seriously, you can't allow for one and then not allow for the other.

'brent scowcroft, patriarch of the wahhabi lobby, along with richard armitage and powell has endorsed red queen"

Richard Armitage? Wasnt the the guy that essentially outed Valerie Plame and started that whole Plamegate thing and let Scooter Libby go to jail for perjury when he really had nothign to do with the incident in any meaningful way.He worked with Colin Powell and Colin came out for Obama in a big way. Just because they've worked for Republicans in the past doesn't make them Republican.

"If you are forced to compete with illegal scabs on price for your grass cutting business, you are dealing with the federal government."

Not exactly, but I take your point. You're talking about the federal government not doing something (e.g. enforce the national border) that it is supposed to do. I can only presume when Bickel says he wants the federal government eliminated, he does not mean he wants it to stop enforcing a national border (unless he believes each state should control their foreign border, but that's an EU-like recipe for disaster).

Birkel, Believe what you will. I'm just saying that although Trump is 200% correct about Hillary's corruption (and as one of those who participated in the corruption, he's in a unique place to know), that doesn't mean voting for him is a good idea either. This election has become a Kobiashi Maru test, the ultimate no win scenario.

You figured it out. The Clintons collected speaking fees from TD Bank and other KXL backers. HRC triangulated and collected money from both sides. My former NE Governor botched it and gave Obama cover to delay. And then Obama denied it. Canada screwed. The Clintons cash in. Perfect play.

Tim,It's more a matter of the Democrats needing campaign contributions from rich environmentalists more than they need to worry about blue collar jobs. They made a choice as to who they wanted to count as friends. It wasn't us.

Chris Lopes:Believe what you will. I'm just saying that although Trump is 200% correct about Hillary's corruption (and as one of those who participated in the corruption, he's in a unique place to know), that doesn't mean voting for him is a good idea either. This election has become a Kobiashi Maru test, the ultimate no win scenario.

Actually it really isn't. There's a perfectly valid to reason to vote for Trump, even if you think he's terrible. And that is - you think hes' going to be terrible.Denying Hillary is an obvious reason to vote for him. But if that's not enough we can look at him and measure how well we think he will do. Obviously if he was great and commited to Republicanism ideogically that would be prefect. But what if he's lousy?That's still a good reason to vote for him

So, lets pretend its not Trump but Alan Grayson. A total blowhard who has as big a mouth as Trump. He's an embarrasment to dems so they try to muzzle him. But, if they wanted to destroy him woudn't the best course of action be not to muzzle him, let him shoot off at the mouth and not provide cover for him when he put his foot in his mouth?

All the Never Trumpers say Trump is going to be terrible, he's not a real Republican. blah, blah. But if all of that is true why would Republicans stick their neck out for him when he INEVITABLY put his foot in his mouth as president? Supporting him and covering for him would require that he, in turn provide them with things like conservative judges. But, the argument goes, he wont do that. he's going to screw repubs on these things. Well ok then. That means Repubs let him walk into his own trap and dont bail him out when he falls in it, like they would any other Republican who was at least giving them what they want politically.ANd people like Rubio and Cruz, who already hate Trump will make their careers as Republicans if Trump should govern like an a hole. Because they will be in the senate opposing him when he goes full Democrat. ANd saying "See? We told you he was going to do this! This is why you need to vote for us in four years. Because we are standing against Trump".It would be a replay of the Tea Party vs the establishment only Trump woudl be making himself the Establishment by becoming president.

"Second, most of the ways the government interferes in people's life is at the local and state level."

This used to be true. Much less so now, because so much of the personal payoff is coming from the Feds (pensions, welfare/EBT, healthcare, higher ed funding, etc.) and at best being intermediated by the State, through funding or mandates. Plus the regulatory roles are being transferred wholesale to the Federal level.

I vote my conscience. If my conscience tells me neither one of these people should be allowed anywhere near the presidency, then I'm not going to vote for either one. You want to call that electoral masturbation, be my guest. To me there just isn't a measurable difference in the level of suck each candidate represents.

(cont) I'm thining of the movie Braveheart, where Wallace is going after Longshanks and kickig his ass militarily. but he's pissing off the nobles. So, Longshanks works out a deal with the nobles to betray Wallace. At a key moment Wallace is leading a charge with his men and he's counting on the nobles cavalry to back him up. And instead, the nobles take their cavalry and go home, leaving Wallace and his men to be slaughtered.Thats what would happen to Trump if Trump tried screwing Republicans on things like judges, or the 2nd amendment. They already have a weak alliance where the base doesn't trust Trump. If he actively betrayed them, they are NOT going be forthcoming with any support. And he's going to need it. Who's going to pass his legislation? Further, as soon as he did betray Repubs, the grass roots is going to rise up and try to push out anyone in govt who claims to be a Republican who backed Trump when he sold out Repubs. People like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz would be the beneficiaries of this, so long as they don't follow Trump down the path. But why would they? That would be poltical suicide.

Therefore, the worse he is, the more he creates his own opposition in his base. If he dumped repubs and made the democrats his base instead, that would be EVEN MORE of an affont.

So think of Trump as a stop gap measure that denies HIllary a seat first and foremost.And he can either surprise eveyroen and be great for Repubs, in which case Repubs get what they want, or he can be terrible and Repubs can use the fact that he's terrible to build their chances to win in 4 years running against how Terrible Trump is.

This was full-throated populism. It is something no Republican candidate for president has tried in a long, long time. Win or lose, Trump is going to do something very important for the Republican Party- he is going to show it how to enlarge itself. Whether or not the party learns the lesson is still an open question.

How do you get a smaller, leaner federal government when big majorities of the voting public want a big federal government that does stuff like a forced pension scheme, a single-payer healthcare, and a giant global military apparatus?

The two most popular things the government does are Social Security and Medicare. How do you square that goal with...

There is no conflict to resolve. The issue is a reconciliation of imperatives while mitigating individual and institutional corruption. The solution beings with establishment of a suitable religious/moral philosophy, it extends to include contributory entitlements (e.g. insurance) as a "smoothing function", with public assistance or charitable services as fallback measures. There are other considerations that should and will drive policy, including placement of succeeding generations.

How do you get a smaller, leaner federal government when big majorities

This may be a hard problem, especially with generational, doctrinal changes in our culture. This may be a hard problem because of technological advancements, international relations, etc.

That was very popular at the time, and it was in fact a liberal anthem, opposed to the conservative, imperial leagues of emperors and such of the early 19th century. It was a student song.

Post WWI it was adopted as the national anthem by the Social-Democratic government, being considered a "left" tune. The Nazis adapted it to their purposes mainly because they had to, having become so popular.

As always, preaching to the choir ie does Althouse and her con legions seriously think Sander's supporters would waste their time listening to Trump?

Actually, I know several Sanders supporters who say they might vote for Trump if Hillary gets the nomination [some are still hoping she will be indicted and ineligible to run]. I don't know where all the Hillary supporters are but I never meet any [other than my sister]. Even my mother supports Trump.

Chuck said....I wonder how many people will cringe at Trump's calculated use of "America First"?

Trump is the first one say this in a long time. The Obama era was marked with "This or that group first." Trump rejoins the broken factions by using a collective "America" instead of divisive language. Really, Hillary would do the same if she could but she can't because she is determined to run a third Obama term.

Didn't every con think Romney would surely win? All the bravado, until the election results stated rolling in. I'll never forget the look of incredulity on Carl Rove's face, he was so sure Romney was a shoe in. Their polling said so afterall.

I don't. Pointing out a problem does not obligate me to propose a solution. And remember I've stated repeatedly my belief that "America is doomed." I'm not a huge fan of democracy, and the United States committed a double-blunder over the course of the 20th century: it became more ethnically diverse and it became more democratic. A deadly duo to be sure. I'm all for less money going to TANF and SNAP in favor of more cops and prisons. But let's not kid ourselves: the prospect of some small, pre-New Deal federal government is an absolute chimera.

I supported Trump for the GOP nomination and Sanders for the Democratic. I don't loathe either of them, though I prefer Trump's policies to Sanders' (I'm pretty close to being a single-issue voter on immigration). I don't really give a shit if a president is a policy wonk or not; that's Congress' job. At least with Sanders and Trump you get the sense that there is not much distance traveled between their brains and their vocal chords. Everything that comes out of a Clinton or Jeb-like brain is detoured through the wash and rinse spin cycle before being deposited out of the mouth.

The Trump speech was darn good. I watched it at Long Beach airport (which has been revamped and is an excellent small airport, much better than LAX).

Hammering Hillary is necessary, because she is the de facto leader of a party (Democrat) that seeks to hammer America.

If Trump continues to explain how Hillary and her ilk have caused so many problems domestically (illegal immigration, crony capitalism, systemic unemployment, hideous Obamacare), he may be able to stop the Liberal Clinton Juggernaut.

Trump wasn't my candidate in the primaries. But I'd like to see him continue the fight with more speeches like this.

"Perhaps J.Farmer, but what comes out of Sanders' brain via his mouth is far more intelligent than what comes out of Trump's, which routes first through his ass, then his brain, then lastly his mouth."

Wait, first through his ass and then his brain? How can a thought originate in the ass?

Truly! Or visit a physician. Or start a business. Or fill out a 1040 and all the schedules thereto. Or even volunteer to host an exchange student. Etc. Etc.

Just because you don't actually meet a federal bureaucrat doesn't mean you are NOT interacting with the federal government. The feds have coopted us all to work for them. Collect their information. Conform to their regulations. They only come out from behind the curtain to deal with those whose data collection and/or regulatory compliance displeases them.

"The feds have coopted us all to work for them. Collect their information. Conform to their regulations. They only come out from behind the curtain to deal with those whose data collection and/or regulatory compliance displeases them."

I repeat: the two government things that people support by large majorities (at least over 70%) are Social Security and Medicare. Most people do not make enough money to even pay federal income tax, let alone be concerned with the many variants of 1040. Most people can name more Kardashians than they can Supreme Court Justices.

"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.” -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Well, maybe not "most people" pay no federal income tax. More like half of Americans pay no..."

Most Americans do pay Federal income tax. Or rather, all of them do, some only indirectly. - There is no reasonable way to separate Social Security and other payroll taxes from income taxes. Its all one pot, all applied to a collective set of liabilities, and the benefits paid from the collections/accumulated credit certainly don't correspond directly to payments made to retirees or other beneficiaries. - Tax burdens on those who do pay taxes are compensated for in prices for goods and services. Much of income taxation is passed on effectively through higher price levels.

I've tried to read everything Murray has published [despite multiple attempts, I can never get through Human Accomplishment]. By the People was a good, smart read. But it reminded me of a funny quip P.J. O'Rourke (to now invoke his name twice) made about when Adam Smith makes an attempt at policy monkery in the latter pages of The Wealth of Nations: it sucks. Murray will be the first to tell you that he's never been good at offering solutions to problems as he is describing problems. There's been a general decline in institutional trust across the board and not just with government agencies. I think there are much bigger forces at play than simple disgust and distrust with the government.

"Most Americans do pay Federal income tax. Or rather, all of them do, some only indirectly."

Yes, sure, that's just like saying the employee pays all of the payroll tax because the employer simply takes their 7.65% and deducts from what would otherwise be wages. But "federal income tax" has a specific meaning and "payroll taxes" has a specific meaning, and that's the manner in which we are using the terms. I'm all for tax simplification, but the fact of the matter is that a substantial portion of Americans (around half) do not pay income taxes. Payroll taxes, yes; property taxes, yes; consumption taxes, yes. But not the federal income tax.

Put together a candidate or a political party running on abolishing Social Security or Medicare, I'll bet every dollar in my account they go nowhere. I'm very sympathetic to a smaller, less regulatory state. You and I are probably closer to each other's side than you perhaps realize. But there's the rub. There are about 180,000,000 Americans who really disagree with you. That's kind of the roadblock I am talking about.

"Pretty weak sauce Unknown. I do get a sense of Hillary support vs. impartiality from the different annotators."

Oh that "fact check" was beyond laughable. They annotated a remark he made about trade deals with the fact that his ties are made in China. What did that have to do with factual accuracy of the statement? It was also funny seeing NPR trying to defend outsourcing. Weren't promises to stop sending jobs overseas big planks in Gore's, Kerry's, and Obama's platforms? Funny I don't recall the NPR giving us a helpful annotation on automation at the time.

Blogger rhhardin said...Everybody is a special interest. Cronyism is what you want to eliminate, not special interests.

Cronyism screws over millions of people of billions of dollars to make a thousandth of that for themselves. It's not even zero sum.

It's a guy stealing your $500 stereo and selling it for $10.

6/22/16, 5:11 PM

And I just saw on netshit TV how Sanders could cost, OMG, $1.3 million US in "extra" SS protection by staying in the race until the convention, meaning "what a waste!" dumbfuck Democratics have been trained to respond to on cue. Many will. Trump knows this and uses them (cues and people both sans limits created to stop --his--form of decency) too. As any destined winner in the stakes present must, indeed of coursely we all acknowledge post-admirably.

The same bullcunty fuckshit game as "pork earmarks are only one tenth of one hundredth of Federal outlays, so like duh you guys seriously who cares but innumerate dumb dumbs" while not disclosing the TRILLION dollar deficits per each recent POTUS term. As if the pork was the cause of TRILLIONS in debt because it all went to cronies like Solyndra and Pigford Settlement Cuntworshipping legislation.

These old fucks pawning my stereo for $10 because they paid shit and I paid (they don't give a Christ whether it is $5, $50, or $5000) $500 are allowed because of certain other comforts which when taken away will leave many naked amazed and crying anyone had a swimsuit to begin with.

I fail to see why you singled out my comment to repeat your earlier comment. What's your point. I suggest you reread my whole comment again for comprehension and not cherry pick only one example.

My comment had nothing to do with popularity, and both social security and Medicare depend upon citizen employers and the self employed doing the data and tax collection for the feds. They personally get involved only when they disagree.

I fail to see why you singled out my comment to repeat your earlier comment. I suggest you reread my whole comment again for comprehension and not cherry pick only one example.

You're comment was piggybacking off of MadisonMan's comment about my description of the average person having little interaction wit the federal government. That's not the same thing as not being directly affected by. In fact, your remark about coming out "from behind the curtain" reinforces the notion that for a large chunk of Americans, the federal government is simply a nonentity in their every day lives. And in the areas where the federal government does spend gigantic sums of money (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, and the military) they are quite popular among big majorities. So if you a smaller government is something you desire, and you happen to find yourself in a democratic republic, those tens of millions of voters standing in your way are going to have to be reckoned with.

I know Hillary voters but they're all middle-aged, middle-class women. Of course, the Brothers aren't very thick on the ground down here though that's changing as they flee Seattle housing prices. Homeless or Black In LC? Black folks in America face some hard choices.

Check out the pic of Pelosi and SheClinton on Drudge, take a close look at their hands, and compare (they aren't far apart in age.)

SheC's is swollen to the point it looks like a 40 y.o's., and it looks as though there is something in her pocket (like an infusion bag?) I think there is something medically wrong with her that she is not disclosing. Michael K., would an infusion bag work laying in that position? And if so, would it make her hand swollen? Or could it be some sort of lymphedema? Besides lymph node removal (which I've had) what else would cause lympedema?

Oh, I think government is a corrupt enterprise and I think I posted that some where.

No, no...I didn't mean to dispute that at all. The government is run by and large by elite interests for elite interests. Humanity has struggled with this problem for most of civilizational history. I just mean that confidence in all institutions, not just government, has been declining over the past several decades. If anything, I think Murray focuses the lens to narrowly on simply government. But I had little to disagree with in the first half of Murray's book. It was the second half that I found a bit wanting.

Then take it up with MadisonMan. I was just agreeing with him on the word "interacted" and could care less about who he was quoting. I had no idea and could care less that it was you. You seem to go as much out of your way to get into an extended discussion as those who argue with you. I wasn't looking for an argument with you nor am I interested in one now. Get over yourself.

"You seem to go as much out of your way to get into an extended discussion as those who argue with you. I wasn't looking for an argument with you nor am I interested in one now. Get over yourself."

I didn't consider it an argument, and I apologize if I misconstrued you commenting on the discussion as wanting to be involved in the discussion. I don't really see anything to "get over," except perhaps your prickliness.

It has been at least thirty years since the Democrats cared about anything but winning. They have built a coalition of parasites, thieves, chiselers, hustlers, Communists and traitors, and they have been confronted by "conservatives" like Romney, who are happy to lose, as long as they can claim they kept to the moral high ground. Now Donald Trump is going to beat the ground with Hillary Clinton like the reeking sack of rotten meat she is, until the bag breaks open and the truth lies stinking in the sunlight.

I wouldnt credit Deming as much as all that.Every major Japanese industry was present and improving greatly prior to WW2. The main thing was access to the US market, that jump started Japanese and German industry. I am interested in Japanese cameras of the prewar and early postwar of which I have a certain collection. Their postwar products and market went to world class quality standards without much influence from Deming - Nikon and Canon for instance had world class products coming out prior to Demings Hakone lectures, and the same is true for other industries. If you get a chance, which you may not as they are very collectible, find a 1950s Nikon rangefinder, the definitive model coming out in 1951. These are beauties. The seeds were also visible prewar. Deming found a very receptive audience because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, a way to improve their reputation in order to sell in the US market.

Wait - Trump is one of the "big donors" so is he admitting to manipulating our economy to keep wages down? That all we need from our next President - a conspiracy theorist with a gigantic ego and on the lookout for black helicopters. The man obviously has no concepts as to how or what makes the economy run.

"Michael K., would an infusion bag work laying in that position? And if so, would it make her hand swollen? Or could it be some sort of lymphedema? Besides lymph node removal (which I've had) what else would cause lympedema?"

I Looked but could not get the photo big enough to tell. I think she is ill and the head thing is suspicious to me. Maybe she had a drunken fall. She could have been picking her nose (Oh Oh, Miriam fainted ) and got a septic cavernous sinus thrombosis.

Hard to tell. She is bobbing her head less recently so that may just be a mannerism.

America is why the world was kinda more okay after The Americans Who Kicked The Nazi Nip Guido fuck's ass' did so despite current argument's in parallel (wish I knew Latin for in parallel 'cause I'da fucking used it write there yonder) to Islam's monsters.

Radical means require Buckley solutions.

Never cede nor forgo any right as an American.

If you gotta serve America as a spy and write bestselling spy novels, well, then, by God, that is what you do/did/are.

There is no limit, and nobody ever said there was concerning the greatness at Buckley's heart.

For my part, I have stated a goal: reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives, with the caveat that corruption of individuals and institutions must be mitigated.

To that end, I favor the normalization or promotion of certain policies for individuals and institutions. The separation of the public and private sphere is not the critical issue, other than noting monopoly power, especially unchecked authority, and its history of condoning and promoting corruption.

For example, my opposition to government-centric programs focuses on consolidation, stagnation, and corruption. I do support universal health care in principle, but I favor reaching that goal through economic revitalization, individual development, and market arbitration.

As for the impending doom of our society or civilization... maybe. There are certainly multiple paths that would lead to our end in the short or long-term. Let's wait and see how the people vote. I am not such a cynic of human nature that I will condemn the majority of men and women. Although, the "good American", or go along to get along (or exemption) variety, is a concern.

Trump is as qualified to be president as the trash that is present there now. In fact, he is super qualified. I have never seen a candidate more qualified for the position than Trump, certainly not any Clinton or Bush and Obama is only qualified for janitor. As to Hillary, why isn't she in jail?? If any one else was in her shoes, they would be wearing orange by now.

The old straw man trick, "Trump is as qualified as . . ." doesn't make him qualified to be president and your limited worldview doesn't make you qualified to judge him "more qualified" than anyone.

Notice what the Dems are reduced to. They can't defend Hillary -- she is indefensible. They can't accentuate her good points -- she has none. She is venal, vicious, criminal, corrupt, dishonest, repulsive, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, senile, and did I mention corrupt. Corrupt. She should be segregated from the normal prisoners, who have some chance of rehabilitation. Her supporters are reduced to arguing that, like most people, she is female. Vote for Hillary, she doesn't have a dick! Except that given what we know about her veracity, she probably got one sewn on back in the 90s.

So, that leaves attacking her opponent. In which pursuit they are eloquent. But hardly convincing. Trump will probably make an ineffectual President. No one supposes that Hillary and her gang of wreckers will be ineffectual.

Apologies, I did not mean for that sentence to sound like a direct rebuke to anything you had said or asked. I was just freely admitting that I see no solution to the problem. As I confirmed cynic, criticisms I levied are often answered with queries like, "So what's your plan? What's your answer to the problem?" I think I may have a bit of a hair trigger when that question pops up.

As I said before, I am sympathetic to a leaner federal state, but it seems to me that we are now in a society where big majorities of the population want the government to do stuff (e.g. wealth redistribution, regulation of commerce, healthcare, etc.). I just don't see how you get from here to there.

Jupiter said...Notice what the Dems are reduced to. They can't defend Hillary -- she is indefensible. They can't accentuate her good points -- she has none. She is venal, vicious, criminal, corrupt, dishonest, repulsive, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, senile, and did I mention corrupt. Corrupt. She should be segregated from the normal prisoners, who have some chance of rehabilitation. Her supporters are reduced to arguing that, like most people, she is female. Vote for Hillary, she doesn't have a dick! Except that given what we know about her veracity, she probably got one sewn on back in the 90s.

So, that leaves attacking her opponent. In which pursuit they are eloquent. But hardly convincing. Trump will probably make an ineffectual President. No one supposes that Hillary and her gang of wreckers will be ineffectual.

6/22/16, 10:02 PM"

You forgot to mention that she is also a traitor. And now that we are on the subject why ignore the obvious: so is Obama. This all happened on his watch. So what did the president know and when did he know it. And speaking of comparisons AG Loretta Lynch is morphing into AG John Mitchell. If only Hillary had Nixon's ethics and integrity but that is a bar too high for her.

Offer the people a viable alternative. I think an "America First" policy is sound in principle. The population of each nation needs to be responsible for the development of human and natural resources in its jurisdiction. There should be right of immigration (i.e. foreign relations) that are complementary to the native (by legal association, not geographical origin) population. Unfortunately, that is not possible as long [class] diversity, special rights, abortion rites, etc. are public policy.

That said, I am not offering a solution. I am not in a position to offer solutions. I don't think either of us pretend that we are. It's possible, but unlikely, that we may influence people and through them other people until a consensus is reached. It's possible that consensus could override the foreign and domestic interests that are hostile to our nations and principles. It's more likely that our participation on this board is personally cathartic.

Anyway, whatever the reasons for an avowed cynic to continue participating, why not bet on the chaos that orders our universe and personal lives. What bet would you place? What outcome would you prefer? What criteria orders your choices?

I am pretty much an ethno-nationalist. This country was built from an Anglo-Protestant cultural core. Over the course of the 20th century, that core fell apart and gave way to multiculturalism and the cult of diversity. Similarly, we became more democratic following the early 20th century progressive movement. I don't know how to put the genie back in the bottle.

I am pretty in the middle on the left-right political spectrum. I am broadly sympathetic to libertarian arguments and positions, but I don't think they're very reasonable political goals. Personally, I live a fairly decadent, self-destructivel lifestyle that I would never have the gaul to hold up any kind of example for people to follow. I am all for drugging and sexing and rocking and rolling, I just don't think you should have kids, because the modern welfare state pretty much exists to clean up the mess people make when they shit out a bunch of kids that they don't have the financial, emotional, or intellectual resources to take care. My preferred solutions would probably be too close to eugenics to be palpable in the modern age. I could ramble on like this endlessly (maybe it feels like I already have!), but I think you get the gist.

Toonces the Cat was a pretty good driver, though he sometimes made errors. He was a fictitious cat, but so are the dog and cat in the who's-gonna-drive-the-family-car scenario outlined above. It's not a family car by the way; it is a highly aggressive state entity that is populated by millions of people relentlessly working to increase their and its power, at the cost and burden of those not within it or who are not clients of it.

Chuck, re your description of old usage of "America First," did you notice that the Germans are running (and controlling) Europe out of what's left of a country that saw lots of action in both big wars there? They are complete ninnies now, though, who stand by while their chancellor's invited guests rape their women. So there's that.

What do storm clouds over Europe (that were gathering since '38 or '39 or, rather, in and since the 1910s) have to do with events in the Pacific Ocean on December 7, 1941, involving the Japanese Empire, that the US Navy and federal government were utterly unready for? Could linking these just be yet another progressive sleight-of-hand?

tim in vermont said...When the Ponzi runs out, look for SS popularity to diminish. Hard choices will be made, and the longer we put them off, the harder they will be.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you suggesting that the responsible thing to do is to stop running Social Security as a Ponzi scheme? The Paul Ryan Republicans would like to reform it. Ryan has taken a lot of political heat, and serious political risk, to propose reforms.

It is unfair to Ponzi to label social security as a Ponzi Scheme. All investors in Ponzi Schemes do so willingly even if unwisely. Social Security is just generational theft, created by generations too stupid to have enough babies to support them through this artifice. Reforming such a despicable program is not honorable. Paul Ryan is just another dishonorable progressive Republican claiming he can better manage this awful ripoff of a coercive pension program. And, the returns suck.

The old straw man trick, "Trump is as qualified as . . ." doesn't make him qualified to be president and your limited worldview doesn't make you qualified to judge him "more qualified" than anyone. - gadfly

LO Fucking L. Come on gadfly, tell us about Hillary's qualifications. Share with us! Extol her high character! Explain to us why she had to take that $100K from one of Arkansas's biggest polluters and then somehow lose all of the financial records, that we can all be sure would have shown her to be on the up and up. Tell us why invading Libya and Syria were good ideas at the time! Explain to us why she had to delete 30 thousands emails that were in fact federal records. Why it wasn't Nixonian paranoia that made her keep her own private server, but just good old concern for the well being of the USA!

Explain to us why she had to be the Democratic nominee, ahead of all other Democrats, as the DNC leak has shown us. Explain to us why winning the "invisible primary" was enough to make you fall in line behind her!

Wait - Trump is one of the "big donors" so is he admitting to manipulating our economy to keep wages down? Aside from the fact that this is sort of a nonsensical, scatterbrained sentence, I can only say that it is refreshing to see Democrats finally openly defending the fact that their party politics are decided by a small set of people during what is known as the invisible primary. It is quite clear that their only problem with Citizen's United was that CU attacked Hillary.

A partial statement by commenter Unknown: ". . . but what comes out of Sanders' brain via his mouth is far more intelligent than what comes out of Trump's, . . . ."

In which Sanders demonstrates no basic understanding of the value and risk differences between a secured (mortgage) loan to an employed homeowner and an unsecured loan to an unemployed and partially educated possibly unemployable student (to applause): “In my view, if you can refinance your home today for 2, 3 percent, why the hell are we paying 8 or 10 percent interest rates on student debt?” [NB: who's this "we" Kimosabe?]

As Trump does high finance with ease, in contrast with the [ahem] uninformed thinking above, this might be marked as one of the exceptional cases to the assertion by commenter Unknown.

Unkown should read it. Though it is still heavily biased towards Hillary. For instance the writer never gets around to explaining why it was a good thing for Hillary to support violent regime change in Syria, and the military overthrow of Qadaffy with US forces. For some reason, he just runs out of gas there.

Among the three, Sanders, as a person, is the most authentic. Let's give him that. He also appears to have crawled out of a 1970 time capsule. His diagnosis of our problems reflects a grotesque misunderstanding of current facts on the ground, and it is not surprising, given this, that his proposed solutions make no sense. A permanent Bernie Democratic faction would be even wackier than the Republicans' outlier groups.

I think that Sanders supporters can make a difference. Rather than hold their noses and vote for either one of these guys, they can vote Green. If the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they become eligible for matching funds the next election. There would be an actual change to the two party system. Same with the Libertarians. Weld was not a bad governor of Mass when I lived there.

Well, in regards to SS AND Medicare, there are a couple things that could be done. The Obama Administration greatly loosened up eligibility to SS disability and the like in order to partially hide the depth of the Obama Recession. Tighten it back up, and elimnate people who are faking or really shouldn't qualify, and you should be able to save a bit. And the Medicare fraud rate is still well above private insurance. But, that can be said about much of what Obama has done in office - much of his additional trillion dollars a year in spending has gone to looser enforced and more generous social welfare programs.

Sanders supporters will be holding their noses and voting for Hillary. Voting Green Party would be giving the election to Trump. As Sanders just said yesterday, Trump must not win, no we won't let him win. Nice

I know that you consider it your charter to uphold the will of the big donors in the "invisible primary," unknown, but nothing is going to change whatsoever with Ms Goldman Sachs in the White House, the Butcher of the Mediterranean.

What I would like to see come out of this election, the one salvageable thing, is a multi-party democracy. It's pretty clear that we aren't going to get the kind of sterling leadership the American people desire.

But "America First" was a dubious chapter in national history. They were the isolationists of the 1930's, wanting very much to keep the United States out of Europe as the storm clouds of war gathered.

Dubious?

We had no dog in the European fight until December 11 (Not December 7). The American people knew this which is why 70-75% of them were against our involvement, even after Dec 7. Churchill and FDR lied and schemed to drag the US into the war. Things like US Navy first helping the RN sink German subs, providing air cover for Atlantic convoys, then FDR ordering US ships to "sink on sight" any German ships. Or occupying Iceland. Or providing ships and other arms and so on.

All while supposedly neutral.

We, the American people, had learned our lesson in WWI when Wilson and the other Roosevelt schemed and maneuvered us into that fiasco.

I suspect that for people who know some history, "America First" will resonate favorably.

I suspect that for people who do not know history "America first" will resonate favorably. Most people think we need to fix our problems at home before we try to help other people fix those.

Sometimes we are like the boyscout who spent 30 minutes helping an old lady across the street. "Why so long" asked the scoutmaster. "She didn't want to go"

So yeah. I know all about the America First movement of the 30s and early 40s' I still, even knowing what we know today, think they were right.

"Ahhh, but" some will say "Germany declared war on us." Well, yes they did, on Dec 11, 1941. Here's why:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP

For more details of FDR and WC scheming to bring the US into the European war, see the correspondence between them from the period 39-41. Much of it is in WC's 8 volume History of WWII. All of it, I think, is readily available.

Most of the Green voters will come from states that won't even be close. Maybe in Vermont Sanders voters could tip the election, but I doubt it. Trump is a hopeless cause, you have assured us of this daily.

We, the American people, had learned our lesson in WWI when Wilson and the other Roosevelt schemed and maneuvered us into that fiasco.

Wilson was so sure the US would never be party to another war, he let the military decline into woeful disrepair. The fact that we had to start from scratch, both in equipment and training, resulted in far more casualties than should have been the case. Whether or not the US should intervene in international disputes, our military needs to be kept at the highest state of preparedness.

"Wilson was so sure the US would never be party to another war, he let the military decline into woeful disrepair."

Huh? Wilson was out of office two years after the war's conclusion, hardly enough time for the military to fall into "woeful disrepair." The military was demobilized after the end of the First World War, which was customary in US military history. We did not begin to maintain a large standing force until the late 1940s.

Him and every other US administration of the 20's-30's.The most critical defect was in the defenses of the Philippines. Roosevelt would not even release US Army reserve stocks of obsolete WWI weapons and ammo for the new Phil Army until 1941, and what was sent was mostly sent too late to get there. Prior to that they were on a purchase basis only, what little the Phil. Govt. could afford and what the US would let them have, and that's what they went to war with. And we are talking of basic things like small arms ammunition, machineguns, automatic rifles, mortars, grenades (Phil Army had next to no hand grenades), howitzers. The Phil. Army was reduced to buying weapons the US Army didn't want, like "substitute-standard" British-pattern field guns and machineguns converted to US ammo, which had been replaced in US service even during WWI. If the Phil. Army had been equipped even to the scale of US units of 1918...